Ethics. Ethics in qualitative research. What can one say? Since everyone’s ideas as to what is and is not ethical can differ – and perhaps more than a little bit – when considering “ethics” in the context of a particular profession or area (i.e. qualitative research), I strongly believe there should be some uniform guidance (dare I say, “directive”) and specified “norms” as to “appropriate” conduct for those within that particular profession or area. We probably all agree on that.
The problem, however, is what happens when someone in that area or professions behaves in a way inconsistent with those guidelines. In this regard, I think one of the most interesting things that came out of the discussion in class on this subject involved our various “takes” on how we would handle a particular ethical dilemma. It was pointed out that there are layers of impact and considerations involved – that is, our determination as to how we would handle the dilemma may be fine from one level of impact (individually, for example, it might be fine for me to blow the proverbial whistle on an ethical breach on the part of a colleague) but cause significant problems – and change the analysis involved at arriving at a decision – at another level of impact (i.e. blowing the whistle on the colleague may negatively impact my entire institution or even my entire profession). I’m suggesting here that even if there are established ‘norms’ of ethical conduct or behavior, the analysis of how to handle a breach of those norms is far from simple – and simply having “established” ethical norms may not be sufficient to handle these situations. In this thinking, I am actually reflecting on my experience in law school (I know, I know… lawyers, ethics…). We were required to complete a course in “ethics” – which, in point of fact, dealt primarily with personal conduct as opposed to professional dealings. But, we were also required to take a course in Professional Responsibility – which is different. PR dealt with what a licensed attorney’s obligations are when s/he discovers breaches in professional conduct – including, and particularly, ethical breaches (i.e. when you must decline to represent a client for conflict of interest…mishandling of client funds)- and when you are actually required (as one of the profs so eloquently put it) to “rat out” a colleague. In essence, the MRPC (Model Rules of Professional Conduct) provide the type of guidance and structure I was alluding to above (and if there isn’t a rule on point to your specific situation, then there is governing body to whom you can apply for direction). They impose not only sanction on the putative bad actor, but also provide sanction for those who don’t act in accordance with the Rules’ requirements when discovering a bad actor. In short – the internal debate we might have had concerning the unethical researcher would be considerably shortened were it instead to involve an attorney not behaving in accordance with the MRPC. Indeed, every licensed attorney must pass the MPRE (Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam) BEFORE they can even sit for the Bar (licensing) Exam itself. Attorneys found not to have acted in accordance with the MRPC can be disbarred (i.e. their license to practice law is revoked). Did I mention this is a bad thing?? As a matter of fact, there was a certain US President about 40 years ago who was involved in some questionable conduct around his reelection – and while he was never in fact charged (nonetheless receiving a “preemptive” pardon from his successor to preclude possible indictment) for the criminal conduct of which he was accused, he was a licensed attorney in NY and the NY Bar investigated his actions and ultimately disbarred him for violating these professional “ethics” or “conduct” canons with his actions. That was effectively the only punishment he received (other than, of course, a certain amount of ongoing public censure …) (lesson there: don’t mess with the State Bar!!)
Mind, I do not necessarily subscribe to any concept of “deterrence”: I do not for a moment believe that having these rules in place will stop unethical behavior – on the part of attorneys, or of researchers for that matter. Still, however, I do believe that having “codified” professional ethics or responsibility rules provides the members of the particular profession 1) a common framework within which to analyze their own behavior and that of their colleagues in their professional dealings that is informed by the needs/ requirements/ special considerations of their particular profession; 2) guidance as to their specific obligations in the event they discover a breach by a colleague – essentially taking the decision from their hands for the most part, and thereby avoiding the type of quandary we discussed in class (again – for the most part); and (ideally) 3) a body monitoring compliance to which concerns can be raised for uniform review and advice. In addition, I feel that even if it doesn’t in fact deter “bad actors” (or, rather, eliminate unethical behavior), this (or indeed any legal schema) provides at least a sense that they will themselves suffer negative consequences for their bad (read, ‘unethical’) acts, and that there is some recognition that the “harm” done is not only to the individual(s) involved but to the broader group (whether to fellow attorneys and their firms, or researchers and their institutions)
Off my soap-box now. ;>) As regards IS and research, I am sure that, for example, IRBs are generally intended to provide this function – to a degree. However, my sense at this point in the proceedings (and I could be wrong…) is that there is not a great deal of uniformity between and among IRBs, and that different “rules” apply depending on the specific institutions or foundations through which your research is being conducted. While I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind the expression “consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds…”(or whatever….) I do believe that consistency is hugely important when attempting to regulate behaviors and conduct within groups (particularly in the application and implementation/enforcement of the regulations/ laws/ rules). Hence, to the extent my sense is correct concerning lack of consistency across research institutions etc. in terms of ethics or professional conduct/ responsibility requirements – I would like to see that change in the future.